Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-03 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 3, 2011 Present: John Brach, Robert Goodman, Reggie Krakowski, and Roger Tomten Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Jeff Johnson, Howard Lieberman and Scott Zahren Acting Chair Roger Tomten called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes Mr. Brach noted a correction to the spelling of his name and moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 9, 2011, as corrected. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/2011 -53 A demolition request for s single - family residence at 911 Churchill St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lakeview Hospital, Curt Geissler, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He also briefly reviewed the hospital's long -term plans for the property in question, plans previously submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted that historian Don Empson had reviewed the property and found no historical or architectural significance to the structure. Mr. Pogge stated staff believes the applicant has submitted a complete application for the issuance of a demolition permit and recommends approval, contingent on the applicant running the submitted advertisement for sale /relocation in the Stillwater Gazette for two consecutive weeks, with a 30 -day waiting period before demolition actually commences. Mr. Geissler said it is the hospital's hope that the property will be sold and relocated, and he said they will make their best efforts to accomplish that. Mr. Geissler also noted the hospital's plans to incorporate the property into the campus are long -term. In discussion, it was noted that, if approved, the demolition permit would be valid for two years. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the City is considering a new demolition ordinance, and according to that ordinance, this structure would not require a demolition permit due to its construction date of 1947. Mr. Tomten opened the public hearing. Tony Beyer and his wife, Andrea McCready, 904 Churchill, expressed concern about the hospital's plans for a two - story, above - ground parking structure in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Beyer referred to the number of homes that have been removed from the neighborhood in the past several years to make way for parking and suggested that degrades the quality of the neighborhood. He also stated a new parking structure would have a negative impact on his property's value. He again stated his opposition to the proposal. Ms. McCready expressed concern about the likely loss of two additional houses, which she said are charming and add to the character of the neighborhood; she said if the hospital's plans are for, in fact, 20 years down the road, she would not like the hospital to be too hasty in removing these homes as they might not even be needed in the future. Mr. Beyer asked about plans for the 911 Churchill property in the time period between removal and implementation of the hospital's long -term plans. Mr. Geissler said the intended use would be landscaped green space until the expansion takes place. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 3, 2011 No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten noted that, at this time, the HPC is reviewing this only as a demolition permit request; the land use issues and plans for the expansion of the hospital are more the purview of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Tomten asked whether there were any concerns about approving the demolition permit and turning this property into green space, given some uncertainty about the future. Mr. Geissler stated the hospital is committed to remain at this site for the long -term, noting the hospital has just invested about $20 million into the site in the past several years; he said the hospital has not purchased any property for another potential building site and reiterated that the hospital is committed to remain at this site for in- patient services for the long- term. Mr. Geissler again noted the hospital's preference to relocate the home, rather than demolish it. On a question by Mr. Tomten, Mr. Geissler said they were aware of and comfortable with the staff's recommendation that approval be contingent on the ad being published once a week for two consecutive weeks, with the demolition permit not to be effective until 30 days after the last publication date. Mr. Brach noted demolition requests are always difficult and to deny, the Commission must show a basis for denial; he said it appears that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the ordinance, with the exception of the advertisement. Mr. Brach moved approval with the condition regarding the advertisement and the effort to attempt to relocate the home as close to the existing location as possible. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -50 Design review of signage "Stillwater Acupuncture and Nutrition" at 450 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Lisa Freitag, applicant. A representative of the business was present. Mr. Tomten reviewed the request. Mr. Tomten noted that the typical finish for aluminum signage is a glossy finish, which negates what the Commission is trying to achieve in terms of a more historic look; he suggested that the applicant look for more of a flat finish for the background and lettering. Mr. Krakowski moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -51 Design review of fapade improvement at 114 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Jon Whitcomb, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge said the applicant is requesting to do some repair and replacement of windows, siding and shutters. He noted the building was constructed in 1848. He said the applicant is requesting a fapade improvement loan for the work and window replacement work does not follow Secretary of Interior guidelines for rehabilitation. Due to that issue, he said the applicant has agreed to do restoration of the windows and trim. He said approval is recommended with the condition that windows shall be retained and restored; he said it is also recommended that the HPC recommend Council approval of a fapade improvement loan. Mr. Tomten asked if the siding will be replaced or restored; Mr. Pogge said there will be some replacement, but the intent is to restore and repaint the majority of the siding. Mr. Brach moved to approve as conditioned in the staff report. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -52 Design review of fapade improvement at 219 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Monty Brine, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge said the applicant intends to remove and restore the existing glass transom window; he said it is work that really needs to be done and approval is City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 3, 2011 recommended. Mr. Brach moved to approve the application as conditioned in the staff report. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -54 Design review of signage for "Kin's Wok" at 14410 60 St. N. in the BP- C, Business Park Commercial District. L &D Signs, applicant. Duane Downey of L &D Signs was present. Mr. Tomten reviewed the request for a wall sign and freestanding sign. Mr. Downey noted the signs are existing cabinets with new faces. Mr. Tomten asked if the backgrounds are translucent; Mr. Downey responded in the affirmative. Mr. Brach moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of design intentions for a residence at 2007 Schulenberg Alley — Josh Clendenen, Delaney Company, LLC, builder, and Nathan Jespersen, potential buyer of the property, were present. Mr. Clendenen said the intention is to demolish the existing structure and said, while he had not done the pricing, he is confident that it would not be worth remodeling the structure. He reviewed two design plans preferred by the homeowners, noting the plans are intended to take advantage of the views of the river afforded by the property. He provided several photos of nearby structures, within "eye -shot view" of the property in question, including one with a similar roofline included in the Jespersens' preferred plans. Mr. Pogge noted the subject property is in the Neighborhood Conservation District; he provided photos of the surrounding houses, noting that one of the criteria for the infill district is that the infill structure be of similar size. In discussion, it was noted the plans are outside of the 40' setback from the bluff line. Mr. Pogge stated the proposal meets all the requirements for the RB zoning district and also meets riverway and steep slope setback requirements. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the proposal involves two parcels, which must be considered one, to meet St. Croix Riverway lot size requirements. Mr. Pogge also noted that the new structure will have to be a natural, earth tone color, according to the St. Croix Riverway rules. Mr. Clendenen asked about infill guideline No. 1, regarding massing and scale, and questioned whether a gabled roof would be too high and cause some potential problems with neighbors regarding views of the river. He suggested the roofline they have proposed, a flat roof, would help with that concern. He also questioned guidelinesNo. 2 and wondered whether they would have to worry about use of lot space in their designs; Mr. Tomten said the guidelines are trying to get people to focus on attempting to get a new structure to complement existing structures, suggesting the design challenge /dilemma lies in the fact that structures on nearby Lakeside Drive are much different than the immediate structures on Schulenberg Alley. Mr. Clendenen said the Jespersens' preferred design is one with a flat roof, with separate garage of similar design. The second potential design is one with a hip roof, he said. Mr. Tomten noted that flat roof design has a bit smaller footprint as it faces the street, which is helped by the detached and set back garage, whereas the other plan is a more traditional, suburban approach with the width of the garage being viewed as part of the house. Mr. Tomten suggested that the flat roof design seems to be more pure, but it does introduce something new on the street of the immediate neighborhood; he suggested the possibility of a one -story mass facing the street, growing to a two -story mass toward the back of the structure. Mr. Clendenen asked whether it might help orienting the structure more toward the Lakeside Drive homes. Mr. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 3, 2011 Jespersen suggested that a new structure would be an improvement to the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Clendenen asked about the proposed use of glass in the flat roof design, whether it was pleasing or too much; Mr. Krakowski said he liked the look. Mr. Brach agreed with Mr. Tomten's suggestion regarding reducing the front massing from the street -side by going 3' below grade, with windows above that. Mr. Clendenen asked about the use of a front porch that has more roof over it on the streetside to make the top level appear that it is back farther. Mr. Tomten said thinking about how the front fapade will relate to Schulenberg Alley should likely be the driving design force for the structure, noting there will be a lot more flexibility in the portion that faces Lakeside Drive. Mr. Pogge suggested the possibility of orienting the house toward Hazel Street; there was discussion of issues related to a different orientation of the structure on the property, including the location of trees and location of a driveway. Mr. Tomten spoke of the importance of keeping the idea of a small home facing Schulenberg Alley and remembering it is a front yard, a semi - public place. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pogge noted that several months ago, 45 Degrees received approval for sign. One of the conditions was that the sign itself was not to cover the transom window above the main door. However, he said, they are running into issues with the location of the light and sign size in moving the sign up on the building. He said he believes the applicant has met the intent of the condition and would approve it on a staff level, but wanted to bring this to the Commission's attention. Mr. Tomten said in other instances, the Commission has tried very hard to get people to react to the architectural form and building fapade in terms of a sign band; Mr. Pogge said in the original Majestic building, the sign band itself was the windows -- there were no transom windows. He noted the applicant is caught in the dilemma of having the original sign band removed; he said one of the proposals was to cover up the 1910, which he said he thought would be an injustice to the building. Mr. Brach said he would rather have the sign lowered as long as it is not modifying the fapade of the building to where they are taking away the transom. Mr. Tomten said he thought there were other options, including using the window space and use of a projecting sign. No action was taken. Mr. Pogge noted the proposed demolition ordinance had gone to the Planning Commission, which held a public hearing and tabled action on approval. Mr. Tomten suggested it might be good for members to attend the Planning Commission meeting to explain the HPC's reasons for recommending approval. Meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Tomten. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary E